Advertisement

Comparative Analysis of Fascia Lata and Cartilage Graft in Revision Type 1 Tympanoplasty

  • Vishal Dave
  • Suktara SharmaEmail author
Original Article
  • 37 Downloads

Abstract

To evaluate graft epithelialization and hearing outcome in type 1 revision tympanoplasty using fascia lata and cartilage as graft material. In this study 33 revision cases of dry central perforations were divided into two groups, group 1 (n = 21) in which cartilage was used as a graft and group 2 (n = 12) in which fascia lata was used. Group 1 patients were divided according to the technique used as group 1a (n = 16) cartilage perichondrium composite island graft and group 1b (n = 5) cartilage butterfly inlay graft. Patients were followed up for at least 12 months postoperatively, mean 15.63 (± 4.21) months. Outcome among the two groups were measured and compared in terms of graft epithelization and hearing improvement measured as the difference between pre and post operative mean air bone gap (ABG) at 1 year. The graft epithelialization of group 1 was 85.72% (87.5% group 1a/80% group 1b) and of group 2, 83.34%. Statistically no significant difference was found in the success rate between the two groups (p = 0.6). No significant difference was found in the hearing outcome as well (p = 0.44). The overall hearing improvement was significant in both groups (p = < 0.001) including the sub groups 1a and 1b separately. 21 out of 33 patients (63.63%) operated had a mean postoperative ABG of 20 db or less. The results of cartilage and fascia lata as graft are comparable in terms of graft epithelialization and hearing outcome in revision tympanoplasty.

Keywords

Revision tympanoplasty Cartilage Fascia lata Island cartilage graft Butterfly cartilage graft 

References

  1. 1.
    Forster A, Jones J, John D (2016) Efficacy of allograft fascia lata in tympanic membrane repair. Ear Nose Throat J 95(4/5):158–164PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jansen C (1963) Cartilage tympanoplasty. Laryngoscope 73:1288–1302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    YurttasV Yakut F, Kutluhan A (2014) Preparation and placement of cartilage island graft in tympanoplasty. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 80(6):522–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dornhoffer JL (2003) Cartilage tympanoplasty: indications, techniques, and outcomes in a 1,000 patient series. Laryngoscope 113(1844–56):5Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Boone RT, Gardner EK, Dornhoffer JL (2004) Success of cartilage grafting in revision tympanoplasty without mastoidectomy. Otol Neurotol 25:678–681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kazikdas KC, Onal K, Boyraz I (2007) Palisade cartilage tympanoplasty for management of subtotal perforations: a comparison with the temporalis fascia technique. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 264(9):985–989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Indorewala S, Adedeji TO, Indorewala A, Nemade G (2015) Tympanoplasty outcomes: a review of 789 cases. Iran J Otorhinolaryngol 27(79):101–108PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Şahan Murat, Derin Serhan, Deveer Mehmet (2014) Factors affecting success and results of cartilage-perichondrium island graft in revision tympanoplasty. Int Adv Otol 10(1):64–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Vashishth A, Narayan N, Choudhary SR (2014) Clinical advantage of cartilage palisades over temporalis fascia in type 1 tympanoplasty. Auris Nasus Larynx 41(5):422–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yegin Yakup, Çelik Mustafa, Koç Arzu Karaman (2016) Comparison of temporalis fascia muscle and full-thickness cartilage grafts in type 1 pediatric tympanoplasties. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 82:695–701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Toss M (2008) Cartilage tympanoplasty methods: proposal of a classification. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 139(6):747–758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Eavey R (1998) Inlay tympanoplasty: cartilage butterfly technique. Laryngoscope 108:657–661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Neto Lubianca (2000) Inlay butterfly cartilage tympanoplasty (Eavey technique) modified for adults. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 123(4):492–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Altuna X, Navarro JJ, Algaba J (2012) Island cartilage tympanoplasty in revision cases: anatomic and functional results. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 269:2169–2172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Singh B, Baka N, Kumar N (2015) Study of various grafts in closure of tympanic membrane perforations. J Appl Med Sci 3(3G):1509–1515Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sismanis A, Dodson K, Kyrodimos E (2008) Cartilage “shield” grafts in revision tympanoplasty. Otol Neurotol 29:330–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Eugenijus Lesinskas Vilma Stankeviciute (2011) Results of revision tympanoplasty for chronic non-cholesteatomatous otitis media. Auris Nasus Larynx 38(2):196–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Indorewala S (2005) Dimensional stability of free fascia grafts: clinical application. Laryngoscope 115(2):278–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Marcello M, Neto Lubianca, Fuchs SC (2001) Evaluation of Inlay Butterfly cartilage Tympanoplasty: a randomized Clinical Trial. Laryngoscope 111:1479–1485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Levinson RM (1987) Cartilage perichondrial composite graft tympanoplasty in the treatment of posterior marginal and attic retraction pocket. Laryngoscope 97:1069–1074CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kaya I, Benzer M, Uslu M, Bilgen C, Kirazli T (2018) Butterfly cartilage tympanoplasty long-term results: excellent treatment method in small and medium sized perforations. Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol 11(1):23–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gerber MJ, Mason JC, Lambert PR (2000) Hearing results after primary cartilage tympanoplasty. Laryngoscope 110:1994–1999CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dornhoffer JL (1997) Hearing results with cartilage tympanoplasty. Laryngoscope 107:1094–1099CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Harner SG (1995) Management of posterior tympanic membraneretraction. Laryngoscope 1005:326–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ruhl CM, Pensak ML (1999) Role of aerating mastoidectomy in noncholesteatomatous chronic otitis media. Laryngoscope 109:1924–1927CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Otolaryngologists of India 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of ENTGCS Medical CollegeAhmedabadIndia

Personalised recommendations